Democratic exploitation needs a culture of violence. Unless you practice violence you cannot get hold of all pervasive State power to oppress and exploit the common citizens of democracy and abuse them to benefit the political party and the politicians elected to continue democratic exploitation. If you are in power, you launch violence to scare citizens away from supporting any opposition political party. If you want to grab power, you as opposition party must be capable of organizing counter-violence to scare away citizens from further support to ruling political party. And, violence must be exercised before the elections so that citizens without political support stay away from polling booths and citizens with political support can be assured of no risk of being affected by counter-violence by rival political parties and vote for the party which has established their terror without any opposition in the territory concerned.. Thus before the elections democratic political parties must establish their unofficial zamidaries in different areas so that most areas are controlled by the terror of one or the other political party, and only a few remains for violent battle grounds for the political parties.
Even before the elections, the capturing of territories by political parties settle who is going to win the elections. The Communist Party of India Marxist or CPI(M) or simply CPM led left front in West Bengal has been in power for the last 34 years on the relatively greater capability of capturing territories through violence in most of the areas, thus ensuring that they get the votes they want to win the elections.
The Election Commission of India has been trying to eliminate the intensity and spread of violence during the elections and offer a peaceful climate for fair and manipulation free elections for the last 10- 15 years and has been increasing successful but not yet been able to eradicate violence for access to democratic power of the State in many areas. The partial success or failure of the Election Commission in curbing the impact of political violence on citizens access to free and fair elections and on election results is due to the fact that most violence takes place much before the election day.
So, violence continues to be an important instrument of securing votes to get into power.
But, how does one organize violence. The political leaders themselves cannot get directly involved in physical violence except occasionally and in dire need. So, the political system has to have a process of organising violence without the political leaders directly participating in violence so that leaders can remain free to enjoy the fruits of power brought through violence by their supporters and recruited muscle men. Over the last 50 years the leftists have perfected the process of democratic violence organisation and processes. The other parties where they have to fight the CPM and the leftists also adopts the same strategy of winning first the violent political battles in various territories before they can hope people to cast their votes in their favour.
In West Bengal, this violence strategy was practiced in selected cases. Little known people got through to win elections in the early 1950s with the help of leaders of criminal gangs. The criminals proficient in murders, looting and extortion worked for selected leaders before and during elections against payment of large sums of money to force voters to come to booths and vote for the political leader who commissioned them to terrorise the voters and capture polling booths and stamp the ballot papers as per their desire. But this was not an efficient method for a political party for various reasons and risky for even a single political leader.
The strategy of violence to power developed in a more organised and professional manner during 1970-1990, with the cues from the dissident Naxal groups in the late 1960s and 1970s. The Naxals were, just as the Current Maoists are, breakaway communists. The Naxals of the 1960s were dissatisfied with the slow progress of the communist movement to bring the communist revolution to the fore and capture State power and also with the addiction of the elderly, non-adventurous gentlemem type leaders' ambition to capture State power through democratic elections and keeping the date of the Communist Revolution of the Soviet or Chinese style at bay for indefinite period. The young Naxalites in the city of Kolkata wanted immediate recognition as famous revolutionary leaders which the CPM old guards denied because they sensed that that they could win the elections given the public frustration over the incompetent Congress Rule that allowed other States in India to march ahead in economic development at the cost of the State of West Bengal in the name of balanced development. The ruling Congress Govt. fought the armed Naxals with armed police, but the CPM had to hold its territories of influence by fighting the Naxals on the streets with the help of recruited cadres of musclemen. That was the begging of the leftists' conscious efforts to induct and foster violence capability within their political organisations.
By the end of the 1970s, the violence capability strength of political parties had considerably increased and just needed a link to the State security administration network. With the home/ police department under ministers, it was just a matter of time for political parties to build up a virtually unbeatable violent terror cadre to ensure that the political party wins each and every election through political terror and violence to nip all opposition forces in the bud. The rogue ruffians and criminals were as much part of the organisation as were the police and administrative forces. They had to be coordinated by the loyal party leaders at various levels. Not everyone can be leader capable and trained to deal with the effective implementation of the strategy of violence and terror. The leaders had to be groomed from their young stage. The political parties recognized the need to converted all their trade union units and their student units into centres of breeding leaders capable of dealing with the violence-terror strategy. The schools, colleges and universities became the nursing ground for future political party leaders. As a potential leader you must not merely be a follower of the party's professed ideology, but lead and expand student organisations and take active part in violence with appropriate links with the local police to remain unaffected and provide protection to the supporters and recruits deployed in the violence and terror actions. As you go up the ladder with success your active involvement in terror and violence would reduce but given the grass-root level experience and networking, you should be still in remote control of the violence and terror activities of the party in territories you are made responsible for. When you are about to join the higher levels of party leadership and ministerial positions, you must have a clean record and appear as a peace-loving, honest gentlemen with no connections with any criminal activity. But you continue to have remote control over the violence-terror establishment of the party.
This matured state of violence and terror based political democracy had been reached by 1995 or so. But not all parties are equally strong in this regime and hence only the best gets elected to power. The formation of Trinamool Congress was probably based on this recognition of the highly evolved mechanism of democratic politics in West Bengal. It has made substantial progress in acquiring the qualities needed to wrest power in a State accustomed to politics based on violence and terror. And, no wonder, it has continued to win elections in the State at Parliamentary, panchyat and municipal elections. Now they are about to fight for the State elections. Before that the college student elections must be won to provide the party with potential future leaders who can deal with the strategy of violence and terrorism on a comparable footing with the ruling political parties. The outbreak of violence in recent weeks at different colleges are nothing but the preparation by the political parties for the State Assembly elections in 2011. After a long time, the State will witness an election where major rival parties are more or less matched by their violence-terror strength/ potential. This may be the beginning of the end to violence-terror strategy of politics in West Bengal and the parties may soon be in search of alternative strategies to get into and retain State power. Or, am I dreaming? This may be just the beginning of heightened political terror and violence before the state of despair after Kurukshetra with all parties and the society nursing grave wounds and losses to life and property.
Nov 18, 2010
Scam-tainted Democracy: India's Exemplarary Entertainment Addiction
From our childhood days in the early fifties we have been brought up with the news of scam. Most scams attracted the attention of people to politicians or bureaucrats in high position or pointed to a nexus between them and rich businessmen. As children we understood very little about what the scams were really about. As we grew up to realise that scams meant money flowing to politicians and bureaucrats through mechanisms that involved political and bureaucratic decisions in favour of particular businessman or business group. As we grew up further we came to learn about defence deal and government contract award related scams. The country moved very fast to state-controlled and dictated economy so that scams became so routine and mundane like loan melas by public sector banks, and leakages down the line in the food procurement, food distribution, license allocation, coal supply linkage allocation, wagon allotment for goods movement, etc. Then, people stopped using the term scam to such regular systems of corruption associated with government functioning. Late Prime minister had observed that out of any Rs 100 of government expenditure meant for the benefit of poor and weaker sections of the society, only Rs 15 reached the beneficiaries, the remaining were drained out by government appointed middlemen like employees and contractors entrusted with the responsibility of carrying the benefits to the intended beneficiaries. Nobody used the term SCAM to such systematic misappropriation of money.
The SCAMs do not become scam in India unless Crores of Rupees are involved as bribe money or siphoned off money with a big private sector company or private industrialist or a minister being involved. SCAMs have a cut-off floor to be included as SCAM for debates, discussions and political shadow fighting and then hiding the SCAM under the carpet through a dilatory process of CBI Investigation, Joint Parliamentary Committee Probe, etc. After a long time a few small fries are sacrificed as scapegoats at the public anger pacifying Alter.
No one admits that introduction of industrial licensing was a Scam, or recognise that creation of public sector was a Scam or not using competitive market mechanism for any government action is a scam. No one realizes that the larger the number of decisions that the Government or its employees are entitled to make on the basis of their discretion, the greater the scope and exploitation of Scam opportunities. No one finds that the details of many laws, and regulatory procedures are structured to allow breeding of scams. People are happy if a Scam involving hundreds of crores of rupees along with a large company or a minister are reported in the Press because this an opportunity of entertainment of political dramas around such a scam. People have no illusion that the country will ever get out of unearthed routine scams or big, scams. Often people know of the brewing Scams even before the Scams are recognised by the Press which awaits in most cases for leaks from auditors or inspecting committees and in a few cases on their own investigative journalism. No one is interested in nipping the scam in the bud: everyone is awaiting the Scam to complete its process so that the Scam can be reported with sensational details and the post-scam drama can be enjoyed. The people have become almost addicted to big scam news everyday. Naturally, such insatiable demand for scam entertainment creates its own supply. The year 2010 has been able to record continuous entertainment with a series of high profile scams: IPL bidding of teams, Common Wealth Games Capital Expenditure, Adarsh Building apartment allotment in Mumbai, Telecom 2-G spectrum licensing, Rajarhat land acquisition in West Bengal, Land allotment in Karnataka, Ratan Tata's revelation that Tatas did not enter aviation business because a minister demanded Rs15 Crore bribe money. Each case involves big money - not just a crore or two. Each case involved governments and ministers/ bureaucrat's/ politicians. Most cases have already seen some ministers resigning. Each case has led to political wrestling drama including in some cases stalling parliamentary work sessions. And, each case was known from the very beginning as one of a brewing high profile scam with great potential for public entertainment in due course as if these are great movies directed by start directors and involving star actors in the process of shooting and editing with the public awaiting the announcement of the date of their release. And, the sixty year long tradition of intellectual outbursts expressing their concern and anguish over such huge corruption and malpractices in the country in the newspaper/ magazine columns (and now TV debating episodes) continue as part of the National addiction to Scam-based entertainment. The public at large are all the more happy if a few persons are penalised in some way or other for being the scam heroes at some point of time but they need a scam stroy read everyday just as they would like to glance at the daily cartoon or daily weather forecast or the stock market price chart: it is indeed a pleasant addiction to scamentertainment.
This is the vision of democratic India that those who brought us Independence wanted us to inherit!
The SCAMs do not become scam in India unless Crores of Rupees are involved as bribe money or siphoned off money with a big private sector company or private industrialist or a minister being involved. SCAMs have a cut-off floor to be included as SCAM for debates, discussions and political shadow fighting and then hiding the SCAM under the carpet through a dilatory process of CBI Investigation, Joint Parliamentary Committee Probe, etc. After a long time a few small fries are sacrificed as scapegoats at the public anger pacifying Alter.
No one admits that introduction of industrial licensing was a Scam, or recognise that creation of public sector was a Scam or not using competitive market mechanism for any government action is a scam. No one realizes that the larger the number of decisions that the Government or its employees are entitled to make on the basis of their discretion, the greater the scope and exploitation of Scam opportunities. No one finds that the details of many laws, and regulatory procedures are structured to allow breeding of scams. People are happy if a Scam involving hundreds of crores of rupees along with a large company or a minister are reported in the Press because this an opportunity of entertainment of political dramas around such a scam. People have no illusion that the country will ever get out of unearthed routine scams or big, scams. Often people know of the brewing Scams even before the Scams are recognised by the Press which awaits in most cases for leaks from auditors or inspecting committees and in a few cases on their own investigative journalism. No one is interested in nipping the scam in the bud: everyone is awaiting the Scam to complete its process so that the Scam can be reported with sensational details and the post-scam drama can be enjoyed. The people have become almost addicted to big scam news everyday. Naturally, such insatiable demand for scam entertainment creates its own supply. The year 2010 has been able to record continuous entertainment with a series of high profile scams: IPL bidding of teams, Common Wealth Games Capital Expenditure, Adarsh Building apartment allotment in Mumbai, Telecom 2-G spectrum licensing, Rajarhat land acquisition in West Bengal, Land allotment in Karnataka, Ratan Tata's revelation that Tatas did not enter aviation business because a minister demanded Rs15 Crore bribe money. Each case involves big money - not just a crore or two. Each case involved governments and ministers/ bureaucrat's/ politicians. Most cases have already seen some ministers resigning. Each case has led to political wrestling drama including in some cases stalling parliamentary work sessions. And, each case was known from the very beginning as one of a brewing high profile scam with great potential for public entertainment in due course as if these are great movies directed by start directors and involving star actors in the process of shooting and editing with the public awaiting the announcement of the date of their release. And, the sixty year long tradition of intellectual outbursts expressing their concern and anguish over such huge corruption and malpractices in the country in the newspaper/ magazine columns (and now TV debating episodes) continue as part of the National addiction to Scam-based entertainment. The public at large are all the more happy if a few persons are penalised in some way or other for being the scam heroes at some point of time but they need a scam stroy read everyday just as they would like to glance at the daily cartoon or daily weather forecast or the stock market price chart: it is indeed a pleasant addiction to scamentertainment.
This is the vision of democratic India that those who brought us Independence wanted us to inherit!
Sep 24, 2010
Democratic Dislike for Independence
Since democracies are of, by and for political parties (or, a single party), the citizens are not entitled to enjoy independence: each citizen must be fully dependent on and committed to one political party at any point of time. One can change sides once in a while and de-link one's dependence and full loyalty/commitment to political party X and link one's dependence to another political party Y or Z, but at any point of time one must be completely subservient to a specific political party. Otherwise, you can only be treated as a queer animal without political consciousness and a citizen not worthy of democratic rights. No citizen worthy of a democracy can have the right to criticise all political parties at the same time.
This principle is very fundamental to the success of democracy and its sustenance through oppression and exploitation. A person who does not depend on a specific political party is useless because no party can count on him for his votes. Second, a person who is not willing to show allegiance to a specific political party can not enjoy the right to benefit from favors granted by the political party to him. Third if such independent, non-conformist persons become a significant percentage of population, its a threat to the sustainability of the business of politicians in democracy as such independent citizens will grow in number and treat the politicians as slaves rather than being slaves of a political party or another.
That is why political parties are very active in promoting multiple trade unions affiliated to them, students joining political parties and forming the nucleus of the brainwashing and indoctrination of young minds to dependence on political parties. Even if the citizens realise that the political parties are useless, they must continue to how allegiance to one political party or another. Politicians cannot effectively oppress and exploit the citizens unless the citizens feel dependent on the political parties. It is somewhat similar to the dependence of religious minded people on the priests. Unless there is a strong attachment of people to one or the other political parties, they can organise political agitations, demonstrations, movements, struggles against so-called undemocratic and foolish policies of the ruling party in power or support blindly whatever the ruling party does. Democracies are meant to be for continuous wars and battles among political parties - continuous Kurukshetra war: war cannot be fought with dependent armies led by the hierarchy of political leaders.
Just look at the history of Independent India and its any province, say West Bengal. It will be easily seen that the greatness and success of Indian democracy is essentially due to dependence of citizens on political parties for every thing. Political leaders help citizens to get educated, get jobs, get weapons to fight, to get protection against police interference, to get important positions in State appointed committees, to get preferential allotment to state-owned land, to organise film festivals to make money, to organise sports events to make money, to run business without much labor problems or problems arising from violations of law and regulations concerning businesses, to get reservations in jobs, to get state grants in aid, to get admissions to schools and colleges, to get etc etc. That is why every citizen including prominent businessmen and the small ones, the talented actors, the super sportsperson, the novelist, the intellectual, the government officers, the doctors and paramedical staff, the students and teachers,the traders and the transporters, the policemen and the newspaper editors and their reporters, the TV anchors and newsreaders are now fully and publicly attached to one or the other political parties - sometimes publicly supporter of one party and secretly supporter of another party. You will be always running the risk of being oppressed or exploited or both, but allegiance and dependence to political parties is a lottery ticket to get some favours from political parties time to time. See what happened in land acquisition for SEZs all over India, what happened in Nannur, Nandigram , Singur, Rajarhat, Lalgarh etc in West Bengal, Common Wealth Games mismanagement in New Delhi, massacres by armed political party cadres in different parts of West Bengal, political intervention in the love and marriage affairs of young couples through the oppressive police machinery, the circuses of inauguration events with speeches by politicians at so-called mass rallies (how much time politicians spend on giving lectures to people in different stages/ rallies vis a vis the time they have for serving the people), and so on. To be in democracy, one has to learn to live with the political consciousness that in a rule of, by and for political parties, citizens have only to choose the masters - one of the political parties, they have to accept the destiny of being dependent on political parties. There is no right to human life of dignity if you choose to be abnormal and there fore independent of political party connections, affiliations.
It is sad that the scientist have not yet been successful in inventing a childhood shot that protects citizens for life against possible attacks of the virus or bacteria of apolitical or political party independence syndrome!!!
How would a democratic country function if most of the citizens became completely independent of slavery to one or the other political party? Would that mean democracy sans exploitation and oppression citizens? How can there be legislatures who do not belong to any political party?
Can we think of a society where citizens are the masters and political parties and politicians are their servants? Lets explore that dumb anti-democratic idea later.
This principle is very fundamental to the success of democracy and its sustenance through oppression and exploitation. A person who does not depend on a specific political party is useless because no party can count on him for his votes. Second, a person who is not willing to show allegiance to a specific political party can not enjoy the right to benefit from favors granted by the political party to him. Third if such independent, non-conformist persons become a significant percentage of population, its a threat to the sustainability of the business of politicians in democracy as such independent citizens will grow in number and treat the politicians as slaves rather than being slaves of a political party or another.
That is why political parties are very active in promoting multiple trade unions affiliated to them, students joining political parties and forming the nucleus of the brainwashing and indoctrination of young minds to dependence on political parties. Even if the citizens realise that the political parties are useless, they must continue to how allegiance to one political party or another. Politicians cannot effectively oppress and exploit the citizens unless the citizens feel dependent on the political parties. It is somewhat similar to the dependence of religious minded people on the priests. Unless there is a strong attachment of people to one or the other political parties, they can organise political agitations, demonstrations, movements, struggles against so-called undemocratic and foolish policies of the ruling party in power or support blindly whatever the ruling party does. Democracies are meant to be for continuous wars and battles among political parties - continuous Kurukshetra war: war cannot be fought with dependent armies led by the hierarchy of political leaders.
Just look at the history of Independent India and its any province, say West Bengal. It will be easily seen that the greatness and success of Indian democracy is essentially due to dependence of citizens on political parties for every thing. Political leaders help citizens to get educated, get jobs, get weapons to fight, to get protection against police interference, to get important positions in State appointed committees, to get preferential allotment to state-owned land, to organise film festivals to make money, to organise sports events to make money, to run business without much labor problems or problems arising from violations of law and regulations concerning businesses, to get reservations in jobs, to get state grants in aid, to get admissions to schools and colleges, to get etc etc. That is why every citizen including prominent businessmen and the small ones, the talented actors, the super sportsperson, the novelist, the intellectual, the government officers, the doctors and paramedical staff, the students and teachers,the traders and the transporters, the policemen and the newspaper editors and their reporters, the TV anchors and newsreaders are now fully and publicly attached to one or the other political parties - sometimes publicly supporter of one party and secretly supporter of another party. You will be always running the risk of being oppressed or exploited or both, but allegiance and dependence to political parties is a lottery ticket to get some favours from political parties time to time. See what happened in land acquisition for SEZs all over India, what happened in Nannur, Nandigram , Singur, Rajarhat, Lalgarh etc in West Bengal, Common Wealth Games mismanagement in New Delhi, massacres by armed political party cadres in different parts of West Bengal, political intervention in the love and marriage affairs of young couples through the oppressive police machinery, the circuses of inauguration events with speeches by politicians at so-called mass rallies (how much time politicians spend on giving lectures to people in different stages/ rallies vis a vis the time they have for serving the people), and so on. To be in democracy, one has to learn to live with the political consciousness that in a rule of, by and for political parties, citizens have only to choose the masters - one of the political parties, they have to accept the destiny of being dependent on political parties. There is no right to human life of dignity if you choose to be abnormal and there fore independent of political party connections, affiliations.
It is sad that the scientist have not yet been successful in inventing a childhood shot that protects citizens for life against possible attacks of the virus or bacteria of apolitical or political party independence syndrome!!!
How would a democratic country function if most of the citizens became completely independent of slavery to one or the other political party? Would that mean democracy sans exploitation and oppression citizens? How can there be legislatures who do not belong to any political party?
Can we think of a society where citizens are the masters and political parties and politicians are their servants? Lets explore that dumb anti-democratic idea later.
Sep 21, 2010
Of, By and For the Political Party(ies)
Some great person defined democracy as the rule of the people, by the people and for the people. In Monarchy's the rule was of, by and for the King. In the Hindu epic Ramayana, Rama's rule was of Dharma (Righteousness), by King Rama and for the people. In the later Hindu Epic Mahabharata, the rule was of the Royal families, by the crooked of the royal families and for the royal families and the warrior class. In history throughout muscle power dominated : the earth for the enjoyment of the brave, talented fighters. There were times when small kingdoms were ruled by democratically elected leaders (must have been voice votes for the smartest or the most physically powerful (with or without weapons) men. Even Napoleon got elected to rule and turned France into his Kingdom. Some monarchs were just plain dictators: some enjoyed a court of physically weak learned men and men of arts. Dynastic rule by royal families became accepted as the just rule of, by and for the royal families. Some kingdoms were ruled as a collection of oligarchs, each a king of a given territory and they combined to have a lead super king of the conglomerate of consolidated territory.
Modern democracies have been founded on the same principles of the past but principles are couched in words that have magical powers to fool the common citizens. Multi-party democracies have allowed leaders to emerge along a hierarchical chain. Parties are nothing but instruments to throw new people's representative kings up. Party is a machinery to collect votes in favour of leaders they happen to get and market them to the electorate. The marketing literature of parties talk of various ideologies ( which generally are lot of verbose and slogan the citizens do not understand but like them to be couched in attractive enough words and phrases that one would consider to be fashionable), tall and hence inherently false promises to the citizens (that are seldom capable of being fulfilled by any party in power). But parties need workers and they get them - a few get fooled by ideologies, some aspire to become leaders one day and enjoy like kings did, most others work against compensation in monetary or other material terms. Let alone the ruling party functionaries, the opposition party functionaries in modern democracy have their share of power to abuse and can provide benefit in terms of getting commercial contracts, access to State funds ostensibly earmarked for great social, cultural, sports, academic research and etc work. Most party workers work for getting these doled out by the party leaders.
Leaders are generally those who have failed to succeed in any kind of economic activity or interested in using political clout to beat rivals in competition that can only be distorted by the abuse of the power of the Government or legislation. Except for a few exceptions, most political leaders have failed to compete for the top positions in academic career, sports, acting, professional or vocational skill acquisition (however, once they come into leadership, they find that the media and the public have found in them lot of talents and skills in sports, culture, painting, singing, literature, etc and even some of these political dullards with public oratory skills manage to get recognised as intellectuals and philosophers). Some great person had said democracy is the rule of the idiots. The business of Ruling (administration, law and order, policing, is best done by idiots only: the skilled and the talented are best used for actual productive work and scientific/ technological advances.
So, the business of democratic politics offers a good avenue of building a financially successful career with lot of name and fame including for being philanthropic and benevolent (at the expense of tay payers' money). Bulk of the money collected through taxes are essentially coercive levies of thee type collected by hooligans. The businessmen of productive economic activities like manufacturing, banking, insurance, other services and construction, transport and trade, if they have to continue, their business must pay both official taxes to the Government for the comfortable living of the people' elected representatives and donations ( charges?) to various political parties.
The business of politics require very little owners/ promoters capital. It does not require borrowing at all. Monies flow to political parties from the citizens because they cannot live peacefully if they do not pay the political party charges.
All parties swear in the name of the people at large and promises to do only good for the people. But most people complain that political parties did nothing for them. Yet being in democracy, they have to pay the political party levies either through the government or as donations/ subscriptions to the political parties directly. When in power, the ruling political party gets the most of the donations and subscriptions./ political party charges.
The strategy of a political party is to get the maximum number of the party nominees elected as people's representatives. If the number they get in the elections is a clear majority, they enjoy a full term of five years to exploit the people. Even if they get fewer seats, they can still get into position of membership of various committees of the elected representatives which are associated with lot of pecuniary benefits and little work besides traveling and dining after meetings. Moreover, if no political party gets a clear majority, more than one party form a coalition to rule: the benefits are distributed in proportion of the relative electoral successes hey have and how critical they are for not allowing an alternative coalition government.
Almost all parties want to become the only party in the country. This has happened in the Democratic Republic of China: Communist Party is the only political and non-political party in that country. That is the ideal of democracy. But that ideal is seldom reached. In Countries like India which are federal democracies, some political parties try to concentrate only on one or two provinces and try to ensure that in the province no other party is able to win a single seat in the election to the provincial legislative assembly. The Congress Party did this in West Bengal for about two decades after independence, then the Communist Party Marxists did the same for the next three decades and is still continuing. Single party is best for democracy: there is no inter party fight and murders etc and corresponding law and order chaos. But one does not get the best situation all the time.
Political parties are seldom wound up: sometimes there are mergers and acquisitions in the business of political parties. Even those who do not believe in democracy and capitalism, form political parties and vow to struggle until both democracy and communism is established. In India there are many such political parties - they are nowadays called Maoists parties (somehow the Indian political parties get their names by borrowing from abroad: there is the Congress Party and Trinamul Congress Party, and there are many socialist or Samajwadi party, there a number of communist parties and now a number of Maoists parties: foreign ideas and names always get a premium value in the Indian market). The Maoist parties are capturing inaccessible, Forest areas and running their own governments in those places. They recruit young people, train them to modern weaponry to fight the police in guerrilla war fare, they collect their levies from the people in the locality even if they are poor, run ancillary smuggling and narcotic businesses, arrange for sexual comfort for their party men and even arrange insurance from Indian insurance companies for their terrorist party men if they die while fighting with the police or the other political party armed cadres. Most political parties in India has to raise some sort of armed cadres for the protection of their leaders and for collecting money from the people at gun point. Only the ruling parties enjoy the benefit of State police acting as their additional armed cadres to fight other political parties.
Indians think that democracy is the best thing in the World. And, they think that political parties are the pillars of democracy and therefore become politically conscious by being a blind supporter of one of the parties. Without political parties, Indian cannot live. There is no room for apolitical, independent citizens of citizens independent elected representatives. No one can be elected if he or she is not a nominee of a political party. India is truly a democracy of, by and for political parties. India is proud of her great democracy of, by and for political parties. People are dead.
Modern democracies have been founded on the same principles of the past but principles are couched in words that have magical powers to fool the common citizens. Multi-party democracies have allowed leaders to emerge along a hierarchical chain. Parties are nothing but instruments to throw new people's representative kings up. Party is a machinery to collect votes in favour of leaders they happen to get and market them to the electorate. The marketing literature of parties talk of various ideologies ( which generally are lot of verbose and slogan the citizens do not understand but like them to be couched in attractive enough words and phrases that one would consider to be fashionable), tall and hence inherently false promises to the citizens (that are seldom capable of being fulfilled by any party in power). But parties need workers and they get them - a few get fooled by ideologies, some aspire to become leaders one day and enjoy like kings did, most others work against compensation in monetary or other material terms. Let alone the ruling party functionaries, the opposition party functionaries in modern democracy have their share of power to abuse and can provide benefit in terms of getting commercial contracts, access to State funds ostensibly earmarked for great social, cultural, sports, academic research and etc work. Most party workers work for getting these doled out by the party leaders.
Leaders are generally those who have failed to succeed in any kind of economic activity or interested in using political clout to beat rivals in competition that can only be distorted by the abuse of the power of the Government or legislation. Except for a few exceptions, most political leaders have failed to compete for the top positions in academic career, sports, acting, professional or vocational skill acquisition (however, once they come into leadership, they find that the media and the public have found in them lot of talents and skills in sports, culture, painting, singing, literature, etc and even some of these political dullards with public oratory skills manage to get recognised as intellectuals and philosophers). Some great person had said democracy is the rule of the idiots. The business of Ruling (administration, law and order, policing, is best done by idiots only: the skilled and the talented are best used for actual productive work and scientific/ technological advances.
So, the business of democratic politics offers a good avenue of building a financially successful career with lot of name and fame including for being philanthropic and benevolent (at the expense of tay payers' money). Bulk of the money collected through taxes are essentially coercive levies of thee type collected by hooligans. The businessmen of productive economic activities like manufacturing, banking, insurance, other services and construction, transport and trade, if they have to continue, their business must pay both official taxes to the Government for the comfortable living of the people' elected representatives and donations ( charges?) to various political parties.
The business of politics require very little owners/ promoters capital. It does not require borrowing at all. Monies flow to political parties from the citizens because they cannot live peacefully if they do not pay the political party charges.
All parties swear in the name of the people at large and promises to do only good for the people. But most people complain that political parties did nothing for them. Yet being in democracy, they have to pay the political party levies either through the government or as donations/ subscriptions to the political parties directly. When in power, the ruling political party gets the most of the donations and subscriptions./ political party charges.
The strategy of a political party is to get the maximum number of the party nominees elected as people's representatives. If the number they get in the elections is a clear majority, they enjoy a full term of five years to exploit the people. Even if they get fewer seats, they can still get into position of membership of various committees of the elected representatives which are associated with lot of pecuniary benefits and little work besides traveling and dining after meetings. Moreover, if no political party gets a clear majority, more than one party form a coalition to rule: the benefits are distributed in proportion of the relative electoral successes hey have and how critical they are for not allowing an alternative coalition government.
Almost all parties want to become the only party in the country. This has happened in the Democratic Republic of China: Communist Party is the only political and non-political party in that country. That is the ideal of democracy. But that ideal is seldom reached. In Countries like India which are federal democracies, some political parties try to concentrate only on one or two provinces and try to ensure that in the province no other party is able to win a single seat in the election to the provincial legislative assembly. The Congress Party did this in West Bengal for about two decades after independence, then the Communist Party Marxists did the same for the next three decades and is still continuing. Single party is best for democracy: there is no inter party fight and murders etc and corresponding law and order chaos. But one does not get the best situation all the time.
Political parties are seldom wound up: sometimes there are mergers and acquisitions in the business of political parties. Even those who do not believe in democracy and capitalism, form political parties and vow to struggle until both democracy and communism is established. In India there are many such political parties - they are nowadays called Maoists parties (somehow the Indian political parties get their names by borrowing from abroad: there is the Congress Party and Trinamul Congress Party, and there are many socialist or Samajwadi party, there a number of communist parties and now a number of Maoists parties: foreign ideas and names always get a premium value in the Indian market). The Maoist parties are capturing inaccessible, Forest areas and running their own governments in those places. They recruit young people, train them to modern weaponry to fight the police in guerrilla war fare, they collect their levies from the people in the locality even if they are poor, run ancillary smuggling and narcotic businesses, arrange for sexual comfort for their party men and even arrange insurance from Indian insurance companies for their terrorist party men if they die while fighting with the police or the other political party armed cadres. Most political parties in India has to raise some sort of armed cadres for the protection of their leaders and for collecting money from the people at gun point. Only the ruling parties enjoy the benefit of State police acting as their additional armed cadres to fight other political parties.
Indians think that democracy is the best thing in the World. And, they think that political parties are the pillars of democracy and therefore become politically conscious by being a blind supporter of one of the parties. Without political parties, Indian cannot live. There is no room for apolitical, independent citizens of citizens independent elected representatives. No one can be elected if he or she is not a nominee of a political party. India is truly a democracy of, by and for political parties. India is proud of her great democracy of, by and for political parties. People are dead.
Mar 17, 2010
Education Gurus' Democratic Monopoly
Although some part of industry had to be forced to accept foreign competition in the domestic markets, the ineffcient State-dependent education Gurus are lobbying hard to stop foreign universities from entering higher education service in India. They would cite various reasons why foreign universties should not be allowed to operate from within India.
The first and foremost, of course, is the Leftist Group and their chamchas in colleges and universities. They do not like any thing American: so American Universities should not be allowed in any case (just as in the case of supply nuclear electricity generating equipment and atomic fuels), may be Russian Universities may be allowed (as in the case of the proposed nuclear power plant at Nayachar in West Bengal with Russian support). Why? Anything foreign is bad unless the foreign thing has been purified in Marxism. Marxism is the only foreign thing that is allowed by Indian leftist. This is understable: those who dream to exploit one-sixth of the World population, would always insist that anything non-Marxist be banned in India, though many of today's Marxist leaders grew up eating wheat collected in begging bowls by India as alms from America. Scotish whisky may not require Marxist purification. Maybe some leftist like Russian Vodka.
But not merely the leftists but most Indians abhor anything foreign (other than what they puchase of foregn origin for private use and possession) and do not at all like foreign universities teaching Indian students in their Indian campuses. But most of these Indians have a daily dish containing potato, except those who became diabetic after 30 often avoid potato: it does not however matter that potato did not orginate in India but was introduced here through European influence and Europe got this from South America. India is the third largesr producer of potatoes in the World but it is basically something foreign, even though Marx also ate potatoes when he lived in Britain.
What are the things that are not foreign in India but purely domestiv and indegeneous? Virtually Zero. Yes, the concept of zero or Sunnya had originated in India along with some amount of Algebra. Astronomy, Astrology, Vedas, Upanishads, ayurveda (Indian medicine), epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata, Kama Sutra, and the like originated in India. But modern mathematics, modern science and technology - all are essentially foreign. Even long after India stopped importing foreiners to rule India, India has continued to import or copy science, technology and education from abroad.
Education is essentially universal and universities are true to their name if they are universal, rather than being parochial or local. Higher education is all the more universal. Countries and nations that put up barriers to free flow of foreign education are destined to remain frogs in the well. India had sufferred on account of this during the period after Akbar and then again after Indpendence in 1947.
Even now Indian higher education is largely foreign or Universal rather than being Indian. Only elements of higher education in India that are weak are of British-India origin: they are (a) continuation of out-dated technology of imparting higher education, (b) dominance of incompetent university education administration in most universities (exceptions being certain institutes of maagement, institues of technology and some others), and (c) overwhelming dominance of poor quality teachers not required to upgrade themselves. These weaknesses persists because higher education is monopolised by State-subsidised universities and their employees, both teaching and non-teaching.
Even now most progressive teachers recommend textbooks authored by foreign scholars or modelled on foreigh textbooks. The teachers who oppose foreign universities setting up campuses in India are mostly those who studied foreign books during their post-graduate days. Why then they oppose the entry of foreign universities in India? Simply because the apprehend tha this may break their monopolistic exploitation of the bulging size of the Indian students in higher education and they may find some of their colleagues get higher pay in foreign universities and thereby degrade them as second class teachers.
But they do not say this explicityly. If you looka at the silly arguments they put forward, you can easily what distresses them. First, they say that foreign unicersities are not necessarily good or better than Indian universities. That is true. But what is the problem? Do they think that the Indian students are fools and pay for getting degrees from lower quality universities when better quality universties are available?
Second, they say that good foreign universities will not set up campuses in India. What is their peoblem then? Indian students can still go to study abroad in good universities.
Third, they say that only students of poor quality but belonging to rich households will go the Indian campuses of foreign universities. Even if this were correct, what is the problem. Let those stdents purchase a degree: their real worth would be found out by the employers through interviews, selection tests and actual performance in jobs. Either poor qualty rich students improve their quality or they will be discaded even if they have a degree.
Fourth, they say the foreign universities will lure away teachers from Indin Universities with higher salaries. So? If the teachers concerned are worth higher salary they should get that. Why should the rest be jealous? Moreover, higher salary may be on short tenure, renewable on performance basis ather than life-long employment at public money subsidised university employment.
Fifth, they say that the foreign universities may not have to bear the obligation of reservations and therefore Indian universities will be disadvantaged. But then foreign universities will not get subsidy from the government also: they have to fend for themselves by charging higher fees and therefore with restricted size of student population and provide higher quality to attract students. They would not get meritorios students from low income families while the Indian university teachers will ahve the benefit of such good students captive to them.
Sixth, foreign universities are a business. They will enter India of only they are allowed to make profits. But Indian universities are also making extraordinary hih profits and passing on them to the teachers: the teachers get paid by the government: it is ultimately the tax payers who make losses on university education. And, if foreign uiversities do not make money, they will not come. So, there is n problem. If they make money, then the Indian universities should also be able to make money and draw less subsidy from the Government. In primary and secondary education as well as management and engineering education, lot of Indian privately seyp educational institutions are making money, while Govt.- subsidised schools and universities are drawing subsidy from the Govt. This has been hppening. Nothing different will happen if foreign universities enter India.
Seventh, the number of Indian students going for study abroad at their own expenses is negligible, less than 1% of the potential students for higher education in India. Why should the Government take the trouble of passing a law allowing foreign universities for the tiny minority of rich students? India has a huge population. A small percentage may mean a large number. India is a country of minority democracy. There are laws for tribal minority, language minority, ethnic minority, religious minorities and so on. The number of rich industrialists are small. Yet government passes laws to protect them or remove barriers or restrictions on them. What sin have the rich students wanting to have foreign education within India at a lower cost than going abroad done that Government should not pass a law? Besides, if foreign universities set up campuses in India, some people will get employment there. What is the harm?
There may be more such silly arguments coming from learned men extending higher education policy-making service in India. But they might also ask: what is the great benefit from allowing foreign universities to set up Indian campuses? Very good silly question. I would not like to enumerate the benefits. But why do we need a benefit to remove a restriction on higher education in India? Why should an Indian student be not allowed to study in a foreig university's Indian campus approved by Indian government authority? Removal of such a restriction is the greatest benefit: in a democracy, the State should allow as much freedom to its citizens as is possible.
The first and foremost, of course, is the Leftist Group and their chamchas in colleges and universities. They do not like any thing American: so American Universities should not be allowed in any case (just as in the case of supply nuclear electricity generating equipment and atomic fuels), may be Russian Universities may be allowed (as in the case of the proposed nuclear power plant at Nayachar in West Bengal with Russian support). Why? Anything foreign is bad unless the foreign thing has been purified in Marxism. Marxism is the only foreign thing that is allowed by Indian leftist. This is understable: those who dream to exploit one-sixth of the World population, would always insist that anything non-Marxist be banned in India, though many of today's Marxist leaders grew up eating wheat collected in begging bowls by India as alms from America. Scotish whisky may not require Marxist purification. Maybe some leftist like Russian Vodka.
But not merely the leftists but most Indians abhor anything foreign (other than what they puchase of foregn origin for private use and possession) and do not at all like foreign universities teaching Indian students in their Indian campuses. But most of these Indians have a daily dish containing potato, except those who became diabetic after 30 often avoid potato: it does not however matter that potato did not orginate in India but was introduced here through European influence and Europe got this from South America. India is the third largesr producer of potatoes in the World but it is basically something foreign, even though Marx also ate potatoes when he lived in Britain.
What are the things that are not foreign in India but purely domestiv and indegeneous? Virtually Zero. Yes, the concept of zero or Sunnya had originated in India along with some amount of Algebra. Astronomy, Astrology, Vedas, Upanishads, ayurveda (Indian medicine), epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata, Kama Sutra, and the like originated in India. But modern mathematics, modern science and technology - all are essentially foreign. Even long after India stopped importing foreiners to rule India, India has continued to import or copy science, technology and education from abroad.
Education is essentially universal and universities are true to their name if they are universal, rather than being parochial or local. Higher education is all the more universal. Countries and nations that put up barriers to free flow of foreign education are destined to remain frogs in the well. India had sufferred on account of this during the period after Akbar and then again after Indpendence in 1947.
Even now Indian higher education is largely foreign or Universal rather than being Indian. Only elements of higher education in India that are weak are of British-India origin: they are (a) continuation of out-dated technology of imparting higher education, (b) dominance of incompetent university education administration in most universities (exceptions being certain institutes of maagement, institues of technology and some others), and (c) overwhelming dominance of poor quality teachers not required to upgrade themselves. These weaknesses persists because higher education is monopolised by State-subsidised universities and their employees, both teaching and non-teaching.
Even now most progressive teachers recommend textbooks authored by foreign scholars or modelled on foreigh textbooks. The teachers who oppose foreign universities setting up campuses in India are mostly those who studied foreign books during their post-graduate days. Why then they oppose the entry of foreign universities in India? Simply because the apprehend tha this may break their monopolistic exploitation of the bulging size of the Indian students in higher education and they may find some of their colleagues get higher pay in foreign universities and thereby degrade them as second class teachers.
But they do not say this explicityly. If you looka at the silly arguments they put forward, you can easily what distresses them. First, they say that foreign unicersities are not necessarily good or better than Indian universities. That is true. But what is the problem? Do they think that the Indian students are fools and pay for getting degrees from lower quality universities when better quality universties are available?
Second, they say that good foreign universities will not set up campuses in India. What is their peoblem then? Indian students can still go to study abroad in good universities.
Third, they say that only students of poor quality but belonging to rich households will go the Indian campuses of foreign universities. Even if this were correct, what is the problem. Let those stdents purchase a degree: their real worth would be found out by the employers through interviews, selection tests and actual performance in jobs. Either poor qualty rich students improve their quality or they will be discaded even if they have a degree.
Fourth, they say the foreign universities will lure away teachers from Indin Universities with higher salaries. So? If the teachers concerned are worth higher salary they should get that. Why should the rest be jealous? Moreover, higher salary may be on short tenure, renewable on performance basis ather than life-long employment at public money subsidised university employment.
Fifth, they say that the foreign universities may not have to bear the obligation of reservations and therefore Indian universities will be disadvantaged. But then foreign universities will not get subsidy from the government also: they have to fend for themselves by charging higher fees and therefore with restricted size of student population and provide higher quality to attract students. They would not get meritorios students from low income families while the Indian university teachers will ahve the benefit of such good students captive to them.
Sixth, foreign universities are a business. They will enter India of only they are allowed to make profits. But Indian universities are also making extraordinary hih profits and passing on them to the teachers: the teachers get paid by the government: it is ultimately the tax payers who make losses on university education. And, if foreign uiversities do not make money, they will not come. So, there is n problem. If they make money, then the Indian universities should also be able to make money and draw less subsidy from the Government. In primary and secondary education as well as management and engineering education, lot of Indian privately seyp educational institutions are making money, while Govt.- subsidised schools and universities are drawing subsidy from the Govt. This has been hppening. Nothing different will happen if foreign universities enter India.
Seventh, the number of Indian students going for study abroad at their own expenses is negligible, less than 1% of the potential students for higher education in India. Why should the Government take the trouble of passing a law allowing foreign universities for the tiny minority of rich students? India has a huge population. A small percentage may mean a large number. India is a country of minority democracy. There are laws for tribal minority, language minority, ethnic minority, religious minorities and so on. The number of rich industrialists are small. Yet government passes laws to protect them or remove barriers or restrictions on them. What sin have the rich students wanting to have foreign education within India at a lower cost than going abroad done that Government should not pass a law? Besides, if foreign universities set up campuses in India, some people will get employment there. What is the harm?
There may be more such silly arguments coming from learned men extending higher education policy-making service in India. But they might also ask: what is the great benefit from allowing foreign universities to set up Indian campuses? Very good silly question. I would not like to enumerate the benefits. But why do we need a benefit to remove a restriction on higher education in India? Why should an Indian student be not allowed to study in a foreig university's Indian campus approved by Indian government authority? Removal of such a restriction is the greatest benefit: in a democracy, the State should allow as much freedom to its citizens as is possible.
Mar 14, 2010
Democratic Statistica
Statistics For Government Decision Making
I have been reading news papers on among other things about what they write about economic affairs for the last 50 years or so. They come up with the same conclusions in different languages every x number of years. The same conclusions, of course valid ones, on the quality, reliability, timeliness and comprehensiveness official statistics have now come up again for the nth time. Statistically good performance by newspapers: only they are yet to learn the habit of referring back to the dates when they had published the same conclusions. That would be too much of statistical work to expect of journalist!
Founded by Professor P.C. Mahalanobis in Kolkata on 17th December, 1931, the Indian Statistical Institute gained the status of an Institution of National Importance by an act of the Indian Parliament in 1959. The Government of India had set up a a Central Statistical Organization, National Sample Survey Organization and a Planning Commission, besides carrying out Census every decade.. So many statisticians are employed by the Central and State governments. Like IAS there is a IS (Statistical) S. What the people in ISS have been doing for all these years? Producing unreliable, inadequate and out-of date statistical information for decades (rather more than half a century)?
In any case, even if data were collected with diligence, processed accurately and reliable information generated without much time-lag, how that is going to help? If the inflation is high, or food scarcity is acute or the fiscal deficit is high or electricity and coal pilferage is high, Government will still continue to say that they are taking all the various measurers to solve these problems. Quality Statistics is useful in the hands of or to the brains of Quality Decision makers. Poor quality decision-making brains cannot be compensated by improved quality statistics. How much of even the quality statistics currently available helping the Nation? What more information do we need to know more accurately and timely about the percentage of females in the age-group 18 -80 and the conditions of women in order to select women candidates to represent political parties in elections or reserve constituencies for women? How much time we require to decide on these: 60 years or14 years? How much more information did we need to know that which farmers have the lowest productivity in wheat/ rice production per labor or per acre or per kg of fertilizer? What information more is required to decide about what is the optimal pricing of fertilizers?
Statistical information is the staple food for analysts and researchers. They need more information and quality information to search out underlying trends, patterns and probable truths. Statistical information is also required to impress others about the great knowledge that one has: speakers in conferences, political gatherings, elected representative bodies and public debates and TV panels need to give out statistics (relevant or irrelevant, true or contrived, partial or misleading) to make an intellectual impression on the audience and other speakers).
But Statistics has also other probably no less important uses. One of this is for decision-making., rather informed decision –making. When decision-makers require they get out the best possible statistical evidence and take calculated risks to arrive at decisions. Decision-makers know what statistics they need and also know that they cannot get all the statistics they need because statistics data collection has a cost. They therefore follow the rule of working with the minimum but critical statistical information. Good decision makers and policy makers do not complain about statistics not being available: they ensure that the minimum critical and reliable information gets collected. But such good decision makers capable of and actually relying on quantitative statistics are rare. The Government decision-making being a time consuming process involving political, inter-departmental/ ministerial bargaining and clash of ego-based/ ideology-based opinions/ beliefs, seldom does availability of reliable, up-to-date and comprehensive statistics seem to matter much. Only when people trust statisticians on the reliability of statistics they supply, both raw and analyzed, and the decision-makers shed their hunches, beliefs and hidden interest in the decision-outcome, there is a meaning of spending money in collecting and processing statistics. Democratic processes do not make a very congenial atmosphere for effective use of statistical information and methods as decision-making inputs: rather they make a mockery of the use of statistics. Citizens tend to disbelieve the statistics supplied to support official decisions. My observations are simply untested hypothesis: they can be tested by statistics and statistical methods. But such attempts would never be made possible in democracies even if it was possible to effectively enforce the right to information, unless, however, there is a separate and independent government decision evaluation commission that continuously review each government decision on a continuing basis and sends its report directly to the office of the President for record.
I have been reading news papers on among other things about what they write about economic affairs for the last 50 years or so. They come up with the same conclusions in different languages every x number of years. The same conclusions, of course valid ones, on the quality, reliability, timeliness and comprehensiveness official statistics have now come up again for the nth time. Statistically good performance by newspapers: only they are yet to learn the habit of referring back to the dates when they had published the same conclusions. That would be too much of statistical work to expect of journalist!
Founded by Professor P.C. Mahalanobis in Kolkata on 17th December, 1931, the Indian Statistical Institute gained the status of an Institution of National Importance by an act of the Indian Parliament in 1959. The Government of India had set up a a Central Statistical Organization, National Sample Survey Organization and a Planning Commission, besides carrying out Census every decade.. So many statisticians are employed by the Central and State governments. Like IAS there is a IS (Statistical) S. What the people in ISS have been doing for all these years? Producing unreliable, inadequate and out-of date statistical information for decades (rather more than half a century)?
In any case, even if data were collected with diligence, processed accurately and reliable information generated without much time-lag, how that is going to help? If the inflation is high, or food scarcity is acute or the fiscal deficit is high or electricity and coal pilferage is high, Government will still continue to say that they are taking all the various measurers to solve these problems. Quality Statistics is useful in the hands of or to the brains of Quality Decision makers. Poor quality decision-making brains cannot be compensated by improved quality statistics. How much of even the quality statistics currently available helping the Nation? What more information do we need to know more accurately and timely about the percentage of females in the age-group 18 -80 and the conditions of women in order to select women candidates to represent political parties in elections or reserve constituencies for women? How much time we require to decide on these: 60 years or14 years? How much more information did we need to know that which farmers have the lowest productivity in wheat/ rice production per labor or per acre or per kg of fertilizer? What information more is required to decide about what is the optimal pricing of fertilizers?
Statistical information is the staple food for analysts and researchers. They need more information and quality information to search out underlying trends, patterns and probable truths. Statistical information is also required to impress others about the great knowledge that one has: speakers in conferences, political gatherings, elected representative bodies and public debates and TV panels need to give out statistics (relevant or irrelevant, true or contrived, partial or misleading) to make an intellectual impression on the audience and other speakers).
But Statistics has also other probably no less important uses. One of this is for decision-making., rather informed decision –making. When decision-makers require they get out the best possible statistical evidence and take calculated risks to arrive at decisions. Decision-makers know what statistics they need and also know that they cannot get all the statistics they need because statistics data collection has a cost. They therefore follow the rule of working with the minimum but critical statistical information. Good decision makers and policy makers do not complain about statistics not being available: they ensure that the minimum critical and reliable information gets collected. But such good decision makers capable of and actually relying on quantitative statistics are rare. The Government decision-making being a time consuming process involving political, inter-departmental/ ministerial bargaining and clash of ego-based/ ideology-based opinions/ beliefs, seldom does availability of reliable, up-to-date and comprehensive statistics seem to matter much. Only when people trust statisticians on the reliability of statistics they supply, both raw and analyzed, and the decision-makers shed their hunches, beliefs and hidden interest in the decision-outcome, there is a meaning of spending money in collecting and processing statistics. Democratic processes do not make a very congenial atmosphere for effective use of statistical information and methods as decision-making inputs: rather they make a mockery of the use of statistics. Citizens tend to disbelieve the statistics supplied to support official decisions. My observations are simply untested hypothesis: they can be tested by statistics and statistical methods. But such attempts would never be made possible in democracies even if it was possible to effectively enforce the right to information, unless, however, there is a separate and independent government decision evaluation commission that continuously review each government decision on a continuing basis and sends its report directly to the office of the President for record.
Free Democratic Reservation
Reservation Syndrome: A Psychological Sickness
People have been debating in recent days about reservation of LokShava (Parliamentary) seats for women. Most people agree, but a few object. Those who object say that they are not against reservation for women, but they want simultaneously reservation for minorities (meaning Muslims). Just as women are backward and handicapped so are the minorities. Those who support women reservation say that one can think about reservation for minorities later: some of them feel that reservation for minority women within reservation for women is a fallacy. No one has however said that reservation on religious basis is anti- secular. If seats can be reserved for one religious community, so can the geographical areas: that is only a good step towards creating another Islamstan again by India.
But Indians are more addicted to the right of getting reservation quotas than the issue of secularism. Today’s secular parties are by their acts accepting that creating Pakistan out of India in 1947 was a great secular reservation quota act on the part of the freedom fighters trying to end their British slavery.
The height of rational argument is that each possible formation of groups like for example those who are gays, those who were specs, those who have aids, those who are thugs, those who are Maoists, those who support foreign terrorist and the like are backward and handicapped groups and therefore each such group deserves reservation quota Of course all Indians are a special category accounting for only 16% of the World population and are economically, technologically backward. Therefore, in the world there should be quota for India and Indians. Hindus are a small percentage of Word population and hence Hindus need a special reservation by the Hindus. Each individual is a minority and many individuals are weak and backward in India. All such individual therefore must have a quota: for example, 15 years of free education quota, followed by 30 years of employment quota and a quota of a Parliamentary seat for 1 month in a lifetime. If necessary, the Constitution could be amended to increase the number of Paliamentary seats to 5430543 with 54330000 seats filled in through a lottery scheme.
Quota within quota is not a mere fallacy: it is a double compensating fallacy. The first fallacy of the highest order is the Quota without further quota itself; subsequent quota within the first quota is another fallacy that compensates for the first fallacy because their conjunction. There are alternative valid options available, but Indians prefer fallacious logic. So they ignore simpler solutions. Men and women are roughly equal in number. Just ban all men from casting votes for women and women from voting for men. Why go in for such complicated percentage calculations unnecessarily? Women will ensure that there is just one female candidate in each constituency and at least two men candidates.
Reservation earlier days required paying a premium. But Indians want everything free. Reservation is a free commodity. You normally reserve your right to something by paying something in advance: reservation free of cost is looting and anti-democratic.
Democracy was not designed to look at the past but to look at the present and the future.
But Indian democracy is all about correcting the past. The rich, the higher castes, the Hindus and the like- all had enjoyed quota privileges in the past without democracy. Now democracy should correct the past making present and future quotas for the people who did not enjoy reservation in the past. Except for the Adivasis: they had reserved the forests and the jungles for the, selves in the past: if they have to give up the jungles in favor of factories and animals, they must get fresh reservation outside the jungle/ forest areas.
Quotas must be defended by statistics and experts. Statistics is about past and Indians have great attachment for the past. But why quote Committees/ Commissions of the past? Just take another survey by another commission: you will know how millions of good and honest men, who prefer to remain silent, are being exploited by cruel women at home while so many husband and wife political party couples exploit other men and women. You will find Independents do not get much seats in elections. Non-political independent candidates also require reservation. Have reservation for people not belonging to political parties: 25% quota for the Independents: 10% for gays and 10% for lesbians and 15% for animal lovers, and of course 39% for retired criminals and 31% for retired Maoists and other terrorists as they need to be encouraged to come back into the mainstream.
People have been debating in recent days about reservation of LokShava (Parliamentary) seats for women. Most people agree, but a few object. Those who object say that they are not against reservation for women, but they want simultaneously reservation for minorities (meaning Muslims). Just as women are backward and handicapped so are the minorities. Those who support women reservation say that one can think about reservation for minorities later: some of them feel that reservation for minority women within reservation for women is a fallacy. No one has however said that reservation on religious basis is anti- secular. If seats can be reserved for one religious community, so can the geographical areas: that is only a good step towards creating another Islamstan again by India.
But Indians are more addicted to the right of getting reservation quotas than the issue of secularism. Today’s secular parties are by their acts accepting that creating Pakistan out of India in 1947 was a great secular reservation quota act on the part of the freedom fighters trying to end their British slavery.
The height of rational argument is that each possible formation of groups like for example those who are gays, those who were specs, those who have aids, those who are thugs, those who are Maoists, those who support foreign terrorist and the like are backward and handicapped groups and therefore each such group deserves reservation quota Of course all Indians are a special category accounting for only 16% of the World population and are economically, technologically backward. Therefore, in the world there should be quota for India and Indians. Hindus are a small percentage of Word population and hence Hindus need a special reservation by the Hindus. Each individual is a minority and many individuals are weak and backward in India. All such individual therefore must have a quota: for example, 15 years of free education quota, followed by 30 years of employment quota and a quota of a Parliamentary seat for 1 month in a lifetime. If necessary, the Constitution could be amended to increase the number of Paliamentary seats to 5430543 with 54330000 seats filled in through a lottery scheme.
Quota within quota is not a mere fallacy: it is a double compensating fallacy. The first fallacy of the highest order is the Quota without further quota itself; subsequent quota within the first quota is another fallacy that compensates for the first fallacy because their conjunction. There are alternative valid options available, but Indians prefer fallacious logic. So they ignore simpler solutions. Men and women are roughly equal in number. Just ban all men from casting votes for women and women from voting for men. Why go in for such complicated percentage calculations unnecessarily? Women will ensure that there is just one female candidate in each constituency and at least two men candidates.
Reservation earlier days required paying a premium. But Indians want everything free. Reservation is a free commodity. You normally reserve your right to something by paying something in advance: reservation free of cost is looting and anti-democratic.
Democracy was not designed to look at the past but to look at the present and the future.
But Indian democracy is all about correcting the past. The rich, the higher castes, the Hindus and the like- all had enjoyed quota privileges in the past without democracy. Now democracy should correct the past making present and future quotas for the people who did not enjoy reservation in the past. Except for the Adivasis: they had reserved the forests and the jungles for the, selves in the past: if they have to give up the jungles in favor of factories and animals, they must get fresh reservation outside the jungle/ forest areas.
Quotas must be defended by statistics and experts. Statistics is about past and Indians have great attachment for the past. But why quote Committees/ Commissions of the past? Just take another survey by another commission: you will know how millions of good and honest men, who prefer to remain silent, are being exploited by cruel women at home while so many husband and wife political party couples exploit other men and women. You will find Independents do not get much seats in elections. Non-political independent candidates also require reservation. Have reservation for people not belonging to political parties: 25% quota for the Independents: 10% for gays and 10% for lesbians and 15% for animal lovers, and of course 39% for retired criminals and 31% for retired Maoists and other terrorists as they need to be encouraged to come back into the mainstream.
Democracy For Innovation
Innovative Individuals or Innovative Society?
Some good Indians want that Indian society to become an innovative society. Everyone knows that lots of Indians have proved themselves as high class innovators while being in India or after immigrating to other countries, especially to the United States. Besides those we know in the area of science, sports, management, films and music, there are many Indian factory workers, farmers, traders and artisans who have make lots of innovations every year but we do not come to know or fail to recognize them. However, the good and smart Indians wish that most Indians become innovative. And, as is usual of Indians, they want government in the country to do something about making most people innovation-inclined, innovation-motivated and innovation capable.
It is this that is most amusing of the innovative attitude of the Indians: they will always depend on Government to lead as Masters or Parents while the Governments are supposed to be servants of the people. Indians think of Government as the tremendously powerful ghost that appears on the scene as soon as the magic metal lamp is rubbed to take orders from the owner and then promptly delivers whatever the lamp-owners or rather the lamp-rubber commands the ghost to do. India has been freed from foreign rule only 63 years ago: still a relatively child society that believes in fair tales.
Children do not have the capacity to realize that human beings and societies are naturally and inherently innovative, especially when they face challenges and problems and when they are not yet rich enough to be able to afford wasting their time in non-innovative activities. Children perceive the issue as one of creating an innovative society while the real issue is of not forcing human beings to become slaves of unscientific beliefs and faith on the magical power of Governments, political parties and bureaucracy. If you keep people addicted to the constant music that governments, especially of the democratic and socialistic variety are the savior of the people, the societies become copy cats, initiative-less, dependent and behave as slaves of the government and political parties. Slaves cannot become innovative. When people get addicted to dependence on Governments to solve their problems of technological backwardness, illiteracy, poor education, lack of heath and poverty, innovation just keeps waiting for people to come out of poverty, low technology skills, illiteracy, poor education and poor health.
To be innovative, individuals in a society needs to face problems and solve the problems through innovation, rather than resorting to gimmickry and dependence on government’s money and efforts.. Since governments are only as good as the people are, especially in a democracy and communist framework, they cannot become innovative. When Governments are believed to be necessary evils that can only destroy societies rather than build societies, governments are stopped from taking the powers away from individuals to solve their own economic problems. When governments become slaves of the people rather than people becoming slaves of governments and political parties in the name of democracy or some outdated, and irrelevant, two- or-more-century old religious scriptures and ideologies, innovation deserts such societies. In fact, the question "how to make India innovative" is a symptom of minds that does not have faith in powers of the individuals to innovate. Innovations make innovative societies. Debating about how some people can transform a society from the stage of non-innovativeness to the stage of being highly innovative is just the opposite of innovation. Innovators do not ask how to innovate, they just do that. Our mindset is counter-innovative because we believe that some policies are needed to make us innovate. Former British slaves started ruling this country for so many years: they succeeded in making their subsequent generation to convert from slaves of the foreigners to slaves of the natives. Innovation does not come that way through planning and policy-making and State intervention. Innovations come from each individual taking the responsibility and freedom in solving each person's problems without hurting others. Only such free people with responsibility to solve their own problems can innovate and use their education, knowledge, skills and imagination.
Some good Indians want that Indian society to become an innovative society. Everyone knows that lots of Indians have proved themselves as high class innovators while being in India or after immigrating to other countries, especially to the United States. Besides those we know in the area of science, sports, management, films and music, there are many Indian factory workers, farmers, traders and artisans who have make lots of innovations every year but we do not come to know or fail to recognize them. However, the good and smart Indians wish that most Indians become innovative. And, as is usual of Indians, they want government in the country to do something about making most people innovation-inclined, innovation-motivated and innovation capable.
It is this that is most amusing of the innovative attitude of the Indians: they will always depend on Government to lead as Masters or Parents while the Governments are supposed to be servants of the people. Indians think of Government as the tremendously powerful ghost that appears on the scene as soon as the magic metal lamp is rubbed to take orders from the owner and then promptly delivers whatever the lamp-owners or rather the lamp-rubber commands the ghost to do. India has been freed from foreign rule only 63 years ago: still a relatively child society that believes in fair tales.
Children do not have the capacity to realize that human beings and societies are naturally and inherently innovative, especially when they face challenges and problems and when they are not yet rich enough to be able to afford wasting their time in non-innovative activities. Children perceive the issue as one of creating an innovative society while the real issue is of not forcing human beings to become slaves of unscientific beliefs and faith on the magical power of Governments, political parties and bureaucracy. If you keep people addicted to the constant music that governments, especially of the democratic and socialistic variety are the savior of the people, the societies become copy cats, initiative-less, dependent and behave as slaves of the government and political parties. Slaves cannot become innovative. When people get addicted to dependence on Governments to solve their problems of technological backwardness, illiteracy, poor education, lack of heath and poverty, innovation just keeps waiting for people to come out of poverty, low technology skills, illiteracy, poor education and poor health.
To be innovative, individuals in a society needs to face problems and solve the problems through innovation, rather than resorting to gimmickry and dependence on government’s money and efforts.. Since governments are only as good as the people are, especially in a democracy and communist framework, they cannot become innovative. When Governments are believed to be necessary evils that can only destroy societies rather than build societies, governments are stopped from taking the powers away from individuals to solve their own economic problems. When governments become slaves of the people rather than people becoming slaves of governments and political parties in the name of democracy or some outdated, and irrelevant, two- or-more-century old religious scriptures and ideologies, innovation deserts such societies. In fact, the question "how to make India innovative" is a symptom of minds that does not have faith in powers of the individuals to innovate. Innovations make innovative societies. Debating about how some people can transform a society from the stage of non-innovativeness to the stage of being highly innovative is just the opposite of innovation. Innovators do not ask how to innovate, they just do that. Our mindset is counter-innovative because we believe that some policies are needed to make us innovate. Former British slaves started ruling this country for so many years: they succeeded in making their subsequent generation to convert from slaves of the foreigners to slaves of the natives. Innovation does not come that way through planning and policy-making and State intervention. Innovations come from each individual taking the responsibility and freedom in solving each person's problems without hurting others. Only such free people with responsibility to solve their own problems can innovate and use their education, knowledge, skills and imagination.
Feb 11, 2010
Robinhood Monkeys, Wolves and Saintly Cats
Some enjoy extremely excessive income and wealth, while many starve. Is this difference due to extent of hard work or luck? Does choice of family or place explain such inequality and injustice?
What had happened in the childhood story that happens in real life now? There were two cats. Every day one of the cats would get steals some food but the other would demand a share. And they started quarrelling, fighting and settling among themselves. A Robinhood monkey came and suggested that they should not do this exercise of fighting over sharing - they should share on a fair basis. But they did not know how to divide fairly. The monkey offered help. He became the arbitrator. He divided the food into two unequal parts and offered the bigger part to Cat B. Cat A complained that it was not fairly divided. So the monkey ate another portion of the larger part and asked for the opinion. The Cat B now objected that this share was not fair. So the monkey ate a portion of the other part. And, this process continued. At the end ,the cats reluctantly received smaller shares each compared to the average sharing when they used to quarrel and fight every day. This monkey took away quite a large share doing nothing but eating away. This made the cats weaker and weaker. As a result, the quantity of food they could manage to procure/ steal from households became lower (deflation). So sometimes, the monkey would take smaller share so that Cats become stronger enough to steal more food. Once the Cats get stronger, they get more food and the monkey would takes away greater portion of the food as his arbitration fees.
Let us look at a simple case. Let there be a rich New Yorker and a poor starving old man in the same city. You do not like this. Good. One economic policy is to take away 50% of the income of the rich by tax and transfer the amount to the poor guy. That should be fair. But once you do that would there be any one willing to work or inherit wealth just to be disposed off to the extent of 50% for the benefit of a person who is starving? Would some one not like to be idling and starving for a while to get 50% of the income and wealth of a rich person?
Why would any of the two cats steal/ procure any food at all: they would prfer to remain hungry for a while, demand a share from the earnings of other cats and elect a Robinhood monkey to take away some food from the earning cats and distribute to these two poor, starving cats for days to come. Are all these fair transfers at all? Why should even 1% of the income of the rich be reached to the poor? Bill Gates and his friends beat IBM: Gates was a weak poor person and he could beat such a huge organization like IBM? Is it fair that Bill Gates did that? These questions do not bother civilized minds anymore as the business of transferring income and wealth has become a fabulously prospering industry worldwide. The modern-day Robinhoods are no more outlawed: they themselves make laws that suit their business.
Forget fairness and create a Robinhood institution called Government (Govt.), if necessary by forming political parties and getting through elections. Then, the Govt. can take some money away from Bill Gates and give to the poor IBM or poor children all over the world. There is no need to depend on the whims of Bill Gates giving away his wealth himself by creating charitable foundations of his own? Instead, let the politicians and governments take the role of Robinhood monkeys, the most inefficient and useless constituent in the civilized world, enjoy life without doing anything.
The cats are of different types: rich and poor. Earlier the rich voluntarily shared with the poor. The monkey is the philosopher/ social scientist and politician. The whole system is democracy with concern for the weaker. And, each government says that they are potentially the best in ensuring social justice and equity. These systems - political systems are called by various names: Capitalistic or socialist mixed economy democracies or republics. They are designed to cheating and fooling cat citizens by elected or self-appointed Robinhood monkey arbitrators. Exploit the rich cats and make the poor cats dependent on the Robinhood Monkey Govt.: that is the motto of democracies and republics. To be fair to them, the Robinhood monkeys are, of course, very articulate and do everything based on written documents called constitutions, election manifesto, economic policy statement, budgets and social transformation strategi\y committee reports.
One important policy the Robinhoods often pursue is called fiscal policy. These are designed to ensure fairness, reduce inflation and arrest/ cure depression, though these policies seldom, if ever, achieve all the intended goals. That however is beside the point. Their intention is to serve the people through arbitrary arbitration and redistributive transfers with huge arbitration fess and leakages by force of law. The pious intention is what counts.
In some countries, the Robinhood monkey is replaced by a bold wolf who declares that the cats should be slave citizens and steal/ procure food as per the commands of the wolf (and his relatives, friends and fans) and give everything to the wolf. The Wolf will give them some share as it thinks fit. This is communist or military dictatorship command economy. The wolf (and his pack) has his own perspective about what is fair and the cats can have no opinion on this after they have gone through a cultural revolutionary brain-cleaning. This is the second answer to fairness.
The third solution to fairness does not need either a monkey or a wolf. When the monkeys who do business of promoting and selling concepts of fairness and providing service to implement such fairness policies, they force down a concept of fairness of their own to sustain and grow their lucrative business to fool the common citizens - rich or poor. The wolf is more straight forward: he makes everyone else accept that he is the fairness personified as the supreme leader. But the cats do not need the wolf also: they can just kill the problem because it does not make any sense.
Some of the cats say that enjoyment of life, starvation, accidents, deaths, births and birth locations - everything is beyond human beings: these are the outcome of random chances generated from a probability model not yet known to mankind. Whatever happens just happens - beyond fairness and unfairness, irrespective of the differential consequences on different individuals or groups of individuals. The whole idea of conceptualising fairness is unfair, unrealistic and illusion-driven, jealousy-driven activity that we are trying to define and achieve. The monkey or the wolf may continue to enjoy the game of fooling some cats, but other cats may just ignore the issue of fairness. These few saint cats sacrifices the desire to share any specific portion of wealth and income and yet food and clothes flow to them. They greet the poor weak cats with love and affection. They preach everyone to give away income and wealth to feed the poor. Some cats follow their advice and some others continue to fight. The saint cats remain unperturbed.
Why do they do that? Is that fair? Are they rational? They believe thay are rational but do not impose their belief on to others, not they fool and cheat the ordinary cats. Only some fake saint cats may do that.
We have these three solutions to fairness: (a) the monkey model, (b) the wolf model and (c) the saint cat model. The first two models do not like the third model. But the third model helps ordinary cats to live in peace with the first and second models. When one is with the saint, it does not matter who oppresses or fools you under which model!
What had happened in the childhood story that happens in real life now? There were two cats. Every day one of the cats would get steals some food but the other would demand a share. And they started quarrelling, fighting and settling among themselves. A Robinhood monkey came and suggested that they should not do this exercise of fighting over sharing - they should share on a fair basis. But they did not know how to divide fairly. The monkey offered help. He became the arbitrator. He divided the food into two unequal parts and offered the bigger part to Cat B. Cat A complained that it was not fairly divided. So the monkey ate another portion of the larger part and asked for the opinion. The Cat B now objected that this share was not fair. So the monkey ate a portion of the other part. And, this process continued. At the end ,the cats reluctantly received smaller shares each compared to the average sharing when they used to quarrel and fight every day. This monkey took away quite a large share doing nothing but eating away. This made the cats weaker and weaker. As a result, the quantity of food they could manage to procure/ steal from households became lower (deflation). So sometimes, the monkey would take smaller share so that Cats become stronger enough to steal more food. Once the Cats get stronger, they get more food and the monkey would takes away greater portion of the food as his arbitration fees.
Let us look at a simple case. Let there be a rich New Yorker and a poor starving old man in the same city. You do not like this. Good. One economic policy is to take away 50% of the income of the rich by tax and transfer the amount to the poor guy. That should be fair. But once you do that would there be any one willing to work or inherit wealth just to be disposed off to the extent of 50% for the benefit of a person who is starving? Would some one not like to be idling and starving for a while to get 50% of the income and wealth of a rich person?
Why would any of the two cats steal/ procure any food at all: they would prfer to remain hungry for a while, demand a share from the earnings of other cats and elect a Robinhood monkey to take away some food from the earning cats and distribute to these two poor, starving cats for days to come. Are all these fair transfers at all? Why should even 1% of the income of the rich be reached to the poor? Bill Gates and his friends beat IBM: Gates was a weak poor person and he could beat such a huge organization like IBM? Is it fair that Bill Gates did that? These questions do not bother civilized minds anymore as the business of transferring income and wealth has become a fabulously prospering industry worldwide. The modern-day Robinhoods are no more outlawed: they themselves make laws that suit their business.
Forget fairness and create a Robinhood institution called Government (Govt.), if necessary by forming political parties and getting through elections. Then, the Govt. can take some money away from Bill Gates and give to the poor IBM or poor children all over the world. There is no need to depend on the whims of Bill Gates giving away his wealth himself by creating charitable foundations of his own? Instead, let the politicians and governments take the role of Robinhood monkeys, the most inefficient and useless constituent in the civilized world, enjoy life without doing anything.
The cats are of different types: rich and poor. Earlier the rich voluntarily shared with the poor. The monkey is the philosopher/ social scientist and politician. The whole system is democracy with concern for the weaker. And, each government says that they are potentially the best in ensuring social justice and equity. These systems - political systems are called by various names: Capitalistic or socialist mixed economy democracies or republics. They are designed to cheating and fooling cat citizens by elected or self-appointed Robinhood monkey arbitrators. Exploit the rich cats and make the poor cats dependent on the Robinhood Monkey Govt.: that is the motto of democracies and republics. To be fair to them, the Robinhood monkeys are, of course, very articulate and do everything based on written documents called constitutions, election manifesto, economic policy statement, budgets and social transformation strategi\y committee reports.
One important policy the Robinhoods often pursue is called fiscal policy. These are designed to ensure fairness, reduce inflation and arrest/ cure depression, though these policies seldom, if ever, achieve all the intended goals. That however is beside the point. Their intention is to serve the people through arbitrary arbitration and redistributive transfers with huge arbitration fess and leakages by force of law. The pious intention is what counts.
In some countries, the Robinhood monkey is replaced by a bold wolf who declares that the cats should be slave citizens and steal/ procure food as per the commands of the wolf (and his relatives, friends and fans) and give everything to the wolf. The Wolf will give them some share as it thinks fit. This is communist or military dictatorship command economy. The wolf (and his pack) has his own perspective about what is fair and the cats can have no opinion on this after they have gone through a cultural revolutionary brain-cleaning. This is the second answer to fairness.
The third solution to fairness does not need either a monkey or a wolf. When the monkeys who do business of promoting and selling concepts of fairness and providing service to implement such fairness policies, they force down a concept of fairness of their own to sustain and grow their lucrative business to fool the common citizens - rich or poor. The wolf is more straight forward: he makes everyone else accept that he is the fairness personified as the supreme leader. But the cats do not need the wolf also: they can just kill the problem because it does not make any sense.
Some of the cats say that enjoyment of life, starvation, accidents, deaths, births and birth locations - everything is beyond human beings: these are the outcome of random chances generated from a probability model not yet known to mankind. Whatever happens just happens - beyond fairness and unfairness, irrespective of the differential consequences on different individuals or groups of individuals. The whole idea of conceptualising fairness is unfair, unrealistic and illusion-driven, jealousy-driven activity that we are trying to define and achieve. The monkey or the wolf may continue to enjoy the game of fooling some cats, but other cats may just ignore the issue of fairness. These few saint cats sacrifices the desire to share any specific portion of wealth and income and yet food and clothes flow to them. They greet the poor weak cats with love and affection. They preach everyone to give away income and wealth to feed the poor. Some cats follow their advice and some others continue to fight. The saint cats remain unperturbed.
Why do they do that? Is that fair? Are they rational? They believe thay are rational but do not impose their belief on to others, not they fool and cheat the ordinary cats. Only some fake saint cats may do that.
We have these three solutions to fairness: (a) the monkey model, (b) the wolf model and (c) the saint cat model. The first two models do not like the third model. But the third model helps ordinary cats to live in peace with the first and second models. When one is with the saint, it does not matter who oppresses or fools you under which model!
Jan 31, 2010
Saving Democracy from Hypocracy, Sychphancy, Corruption, Dishonesty & Incompetence!
Two blogs are doing great writings to lay bare the poor quality of Indian Democracy.
India-awake (http://india-awake.blogspot.com) has aptly concluded that only after getting rid of the purely selfish, greedy, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent politicians, Indians can truthfully sing to proudly claim Sanre Jahan Se Aachha. Till such cleanising takes place clearly singing that song would not only he hypocracy and sychophancy and fasehood. I compliment him and add: We must be prepared to accept the realties and truth:
1. Today's corrupt, selfish, incompetent, useless and treacherous politicians are the result of the lack of vision or deliberate plan of the politicians of yesterday. Today's politicians did not fall from heaven.
2. In a democracy or socialist/ communist country, the people choose those who would rule the country. If the citizens have chosen corrupt and selfish politicians to represent them and rule, that has to be accepted.
3. The problem lies on the people choosing and supporting the dishonest, corrupt incompetent and useless persons, why should some one cry?
4. If today's electorate prefer corruption, dishinesty and incompetence as good, this is because they (especially the younger generations), the only way out is to provide adequate information and analyses to them so that they can appreciate that by choosing and suporting dishonesty, corruption, inefficiency and incompetence, the country as a whole loses.
So the tasks for such bloggers and others are (a) to enable people develop in themselves a keen urge for honesty in public life: once more and more people appreciate the need for choosing morally strong, honest, capable politicians, they would do so and (b) continuously disseminate to the people authentic information of the personal, social, financial, educational and moral standards of all polticians: this can be done by independent rating of each politician. (see two earlier posts in this blog). As more and more people join in these two tasks, hopefully one day most citizens will know what to do and will get rid of what is bad for their present and future.
Prajatantra (http://prajatantra.blogspot.com/) has been laying bare the hycracy and sychphancy in Indian politics. I compliment this blogger for his efforts and add that Hypocracy and Sycophancy are ingrained in Indian society for long: after all, centuries of foreigner domination could have taught most people to remain poor not merely in economic terms but also in terms of strength of character, values and intellectual independence. One cannot correct these by imposing democracy, socialism, secularism and republicism through legislation from above as the elite freedom fighters did in 1951 and later. These words convey nothing to crores of Indian today: they had no meaning for crores of Indians 60 years ago or 40 years ago.
For decades, India's children are not getting chance to live the values these words represent either at home or at school or in social groups/ clubs. The process of character building remains weak and inadequate to make democracy, socialism, secularism, and republicism work meaningfully. With weakness of character, society can only witness degradation. That is the illness. Sychphancy and hypocracy are only two symptoms of that cancerous diesease that India is unable to treat. Find solutions to eradaicate that disease. The best way of attacking and eradicating a disease is to treat the disease rather than concentrating resources on treating the symtoms. We have to find a solution to cut at the roots of the disease even as we attack incidence of the symptoms.
Earler, Prajatantra made a cogent analsis and assessment of ministers in the current Government of India. Unfortunately, however, I felt that all this effort was in vain and widow's crying in the so-called Indian democracy of ovwerwheming State presence in all spheres of national life. Even after 60 years Indians, even the educated are suffering from illusion and ignoring to accept the reality and truth as follows:
1. Ministers in democracy are more likely to be incompetent, corrupt, intellectually poor and expensive burden to the nation than otherwise. So, why expect something that has a very low probability of occurence. Rather, think how to convince the Indian people that India does not need more than 10 ministers and no one can be made a minister without the following: (a) 75% percentile score in the Common Admission Test conducted by IIMs for management students,(b) a pass certificate of physical and mental fitness test for working with agility for 20 hours a day at a stretch for 30 days and for 330 days a year, and (c)a minimum performance rating of AA by three independent rating agencies based on evaluation of past performance and current performance done every year.
2. Governments cannot control inflation or unemployment irrespective of whatever power that the citizens may have vested in them. We should stop believing that Governments can control inflation or unemployment or poverty. There is no scientific basis of the magical power you believe the governments have. Rather, demand of the governments to minimize its expenditure, demand of them to target absolute reduction in administrative and other revenue expenditure (except flood/ draught/ natural calamity relief expenditure). Stop governments from ownong any company like Air India or banks or manufacturing or service establishments. Educate people that Government and politicians cannot really help the country except in the area of internal and external security and providing infrastructure like roads, bridges, etc. The more the citizens expect the Govt. to provide them with economic services, more will be corruption, inefficiency, wastage, uncertainty, poverty, oppression, economic repression,. Ecopnomies grow not because of the Government but despite or inspite of governments all over the World.
Unless the younger generation are convinced that hypocracy and sychphancy are bad and damaging for their future, quality of India's democracy will continously decline. People will then long for an opportunity to get rid of this burden and chain of exploitative democracy only for the benefit of the dishonest, the corrupt, the hypocrite and a few sychphants and not the common people as claimed by poltical philosophers, school teachers, politicians and the educated elite.
India-awake (http://india-awake.blogspot.com) has aptly concluded that only after getting rid of the purely selfish, greedy, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent politicians, Indians can truthfully sing to proudly claim Sanre Jahan Se Aachha. Till such cleanising takes place clearly singing that song would not only he hypocracy and sychophancy and fasehood. I compliment him and add: We must be prepared to accept the realties and truth:
1. Today's corrupt, selfish, incompetent, useless and treacherous politicians are the result of the lack of vision or deliberate plan of the politicians of yesterday. Today's politicians did not fall from heaven.
2. In a democracy or socialist/ communist country, the people choose those who would rule the country. If the citizens have chosen corrupt and selfish politicians to represent them and rule, that has to be accepted.
3. The problem lies on the people choosing and supporting the dishonest, corrupt incompetent and useless persons, why should some one cry?
4. If today's electorate prefer corruption, dishinesty and incompetence as good, this is because they (especially the younger generations), the only way out is to provide adequate information and analyses to them so that they can appreciate that by choosing and suporting dishonesty, corruption, inefficiency and incompetence, the country as a whole loses.
So the tasks for such bloggers and others are (a) to enable people develop in themselves a keen urge for honesty in public life: once more and more people appreciate the need for choosing morally strong, honest, capable politicians, they would do so and (b) continuously disseminate to the people authentic information of the personal, social, financial, educational and moral standards of all polticians: this can be done by independent rating of each politician. (see two earlier posts in this blog). As more and more people join in these two tasks, hopefully one day most citizens will know what to do and will get rid of what is bad for their present and future.
Prajatantra (http://prajatantra.blogspot.com/) has been laying bare the hycracy and sychphancy in Indian politics. I compliment this blogger for his efforts and add that Hypocracy and Sycophancy are ingrained in Indian society for long: after all, centuries of foreigner domination could have taught most people to remain poor not merely in economic terms but also in terms of strength of character, values and intellectual independence. One cannot correct these by imposing democracy, socialism, secularism and republicism through legislation from above as the elite freedom fighters did in 1951 and later. These words convey nothing to crores of Indian today: they had no meaning for crores of Indians 60 years ago or 40 years ago.
For decades, India's children are not getting chance to live the values these words represent either at home or at school or in social groups/ clubs. The process of character building remains weak and inadequate to make democracy, socialism, secularism, and republicism work meaningfully. With weakness of character, society can only witness degradation. That is the illness. Sychphancy and hypocracy are only two symptoms of that cancerous diesease that India is unable to treat. Find solutions to eradaicate that disease. The best way of attacking and eradicating a disease is to treat the disease rather than concentrating resources on treating the symtoms. We have to find a solution to cut at the roots of the disease even as we attack incidence of the symptoms.
Earler, Prajatantra made a cogent analsis and assessment of ministers in the current Government of India. Unfortunately, however, I felt that all this effort was in vain and widow's crying in the so-called Indian democracy of ovwerwheming State presence in all spheres of national life. Even after 60 years Indians, even the educated are suffering from illusion and ignoring to accept the reality and truth as follows:
1. Ministers in democracy are more likely to be incompetent, corrupt, intellectually poor and expensive burden to the nation than otherwise. So, why expect something that has a very low probability of occurence. Rather, think how to convince the Indian people that India does not need more than 10 ministers and no one can be made a minister without the following: (a) 75% percentile score in the Common Admission Test conducted by IIMs for management students,(b) a pass certificate of physical and mental fitness test for working with agility for 20 hours a day at a stretch for 30 days and for 330 days a year, and (c)a minimum performance rating of AA by three independent rating agencies based on evaluation of past performance and current performance done every year.
2. Governments cannot control inflation or unemployment irrespective of whatever power that the citizens may have vested in them. We should stop believing that Governments can control inflation or unemployment or poverty. There is no scientific basis of the magical power you believe the governments have. Rather, demand of the governments to minimize its expenditure, demand of them to target absolute reduction in administrative and other revenue expenditure (except flood/ draught/ natural calamity relief expenditure). Stop governments from ownong any company like Air India or banks or manufacturing or service establishments. Educate people that Government and politicians cannot really help the country except in the area of internal and external security and providing infrastructure like roads, bridges, etc. The more the citizens expect the Govt. to provide them with economic services, more will be corruption, inefficiency, wastage, uncertainty, poverty, oppression, economic repression,. Ecopnomies grow not because of the Government but despite or inspite of governments all over the World.
Unless the younger generation are convinced that hypocracy and sychphancy are bad and damaging for their future, quality of India's democracy will continously decline. People will then long for an opportunity to get rid of this burden and chain of exploitative democracy only for the benefit of the dishonest, the corrupt, the hypocrite and a few sychphants and not the common people as claimed by poltical philosophers, school teachers, politicians and the educated elite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)